4 ms·

HN title (currently reads "US govt pays TotalEnergies nearly $1B to stop US offshore wind projects") is editorialized and it's unclear to me whether it's accura

by Ajedi32 7mo ago

HN title (currently reads "US govt pays TotalEnergies nearly $1B to stop US offshore wind projects") is editorialized and it's unclear to me whether it's accurate. The article says: > We're partnering with TotalEnergies to unleash nearly $1 billion that was tied up in a lease deposit that was directed towards the prior administration's subsidies What's the deal with this lease deposit and how does "freeing it up" equate to the US govt "paying" TotalEnergies that amount? Is this a situation where TotalEnergies put down a 1B deposit to lease the seashore from the government and the government is now canceling that agreement and giving them their money back? How does it relate to "subsidies"?

jchmbrln 7mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  We paid them that to make wind farms. They're now being allowed to keep the money, and not build wind farms. Title seems accurate? It's the clear intention of the administration's actions here.
sheikhnbake 7mo ago
Not sure how it relates to subsidies, but it is what you said. The government is cancelling wind shore projects leased to TotalEnergies under the Biden admin for ~$930 million. The Trump admin is paying them back with the understanding that TotalEnergies will reinvest the money into oil and gas operations in the US
cwal37 7mo ago
You could go to the source and see[1]. > TotalEnergies has committed to invest approximately $1 billion—the value of its renounced offshore wind leases—in oil and natural gas and LNG production in the United States. Following their new investment, the United States will reimburse the company dollar-for-dollar, up to the amount they paid in lease purchases for offshore wind. Under this innovative agreement driven by President Donald J. Trump’s Energy Dominance Agenda, the American people will no longer pay for ideological subsidies that benefited only the unreliable and costly offshore wind industry. > For its part, TotalEnergies will invest $928MM, on the following projects in 2026: The development of Train 1 to 4 of Rio Grande LNG plant in Texas; The development of upstream conventional oil in Gulf of America and of shale gas production. Following TotalEnergies’ $928 million in investments in affordable, reliable and secure U.S. energy projects, the United States will terminate the following leases and reimburse the company [1] https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-and-totalenergies-agree-end-offshore-wind-projects-lowering-costs-american https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-and-totalenergies...
- Ajedi32 7mo ago
  Thanks, that's helpful. Pretty annoying the original article didn't link to its source given that it was just repeating the contents of a press release. Anyone know what these "ideological subsidies" are that they're referring to? Were they part of the agreement that was just terminated? Or was that just a vaguely related talking point they inserted into the press release for political reasons?
  - cwal37 7mo ago
    "ideological subsidies" for this administration means any policy supporting non-thermal and non-battery (to a lesser extent, although their lobby has pretty successfully extracted them from previous renewable associations they relied on) generating units. To get more specific, you could say everything rolled back from the IRA as part of the BBB.
    - Ajedi32 7mo ago
      If it's just BBB they're referring to then I would call that a political talking point since that doesn't seem directly related to this deal. Unless the subsidies being repealed explains why TotalEnergies seems happy to get out of the lease now even though they presumably thought it was a good deal for them back when they originally agreed to it. If that's true though then I don't know why neither the article nor the press release say anything about it other than in this vague allusion.
      - beepbooptheory 7mo ago
        Unclear to me what would satisfy this complaint.. You wish La Monde speculated more on some glaring omission of motive here? You're original point is that they seemed to speculate too much!
        Ajedi32 7mo ago
        They could do some actual journalism, find out the answers to some of these obvious follow-up questions, and report on them. Or, failing that, link to the press report since it seems like as is they aren't really adding much beyond that. But my original complaint about editorializing was about the title the submitter wrote on HN, not the article title.
while_true_ 7mo ago
NY Times phrases it as a reimbursement to TotalEnergies for relinquishing wind leases that they paid for. The US made the reimbursement contingent on them investing in fossil fuel projects. "The deal is an extraordinary transfer of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company for the purposes of boosting the production of fossil fuels." Total waste of $1 Bil of taxpayer dollars. If the oil and gas industry want to shut down wind projects let them pay for it.
- ericfr11 7mo ago
  GOP capitalism at its worst: take public money and give it to private interests, without any thoughts of what makes sense.
  - hedora 7mo ago
    "Trump asked oil and gas executives in 2024 to raise $1 billion for his campaign and told them he’d grant their policy wish list if he won. The investment, he said, would be a “deal” given the taxes and regulation they would avoid under his presidency. He also offered to help fast-track fossil fuel industry mergers and acquisitions if he won." https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/fossil-fuel-industry-donors-see-major-returns-trumps-policies https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/foss...
  - dchinu 7mo ago
    Cough Cough Big Bank bailout..... this is corpocracy with two branding every few year interval.
    - dashundchen 7mo ago
      You should probably look up when the TARP bailiut program was passed and initiated, because it wasn't when Obama was president. The Great Financial Crisis brewed and exploded under Bush. Obama pushed for the 2010 Dodd Frank reforms to rein in big banks after that. Corporate bailouts, huge deficit spending, mega tax cuts for the mega rich, and bottomless pit defense spending have been Republican policy for the last 50 years.
standardUser 7mo ago
They are taking money committed to a wind project and redirecting it towards burning fossil fuels - because what other lesson can we take from a global energy shock other than to increase our exposure to the next one? The company itself (France's Total) had already committed to the wind deal, so now the Trump admin is letting them off the hook, and using Trump's irrational refusal to issue licenses for wind power as the excuse for why the deal wasn't working out as originally planned.
- alephnerd 7mo ago
  Total is also committed to expanding LNG - Total [0] and Oil India [1] are collaborating on a $20 Billion LNG extraction megaproject in Mozambique which was paused due to an Islamist insurgency during which Total-and-Oil India-funded paramilitary allegedly committed massacres against civilians [2] while putting down an Islamic State insurgency in Cabo Delgado. The US, France+India, and China have been competing over this project for decades. These are businesses - no one cares about morals, only interests. And it is in France's interest to unlock these kinds of LNG projects. [0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/mozambique-says-totalenergies-led-lng-project-relaunch-thursday-2026-01-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/mozambique-says-tota... [1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-india-sees-restart-mozambique-lng-project-by-years-end-2025-09-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-india-sees-resta... [2] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gw119ynlxo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gw119ynlxo
- TheSpiceIsLife 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mindslight 7mo ago
    It seems like you should want the types of vehicles that can avoid using fossil fuels to do so, to keep your own prices down? What is with this attitude of reflexively interpreting the development of alternatives as if they are mandatory ?
    - 7mo ago
jmyeet 7mo ago
We don't know some important specifics about the deal but (IMHO) that's on purpose and is telling, meaning you only end up obscure deal details because you have something to hide. So I don't know what stage the project was at but by withdrawing from the deal or cancelling it, the government is going to have to pay a penalty. Is that penalty $10 million? Is it $500 million? We don't really know. So it could be that TotalEnergies is still getting paid $1 billion but now they have to spend $600 million on some fossil fuel project. But in doing so the government has essentially paid a $400 million break penalty. You see what I mean? I don't believe for a second that the government didn't lose money on this political cancellation. The fossil fuel project is just a way to hide that and save face (IMHO).
tw04 7mo ago
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/03/trumps-latest-anti-wind-effort-pay-companies-to-abandon-offshore-leases/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/03/trumps-latest-anti-w... They only get the money if they reinvest in oil and gas. It’s not just trying to kill wind, it’s actively trying to expand burning fossil fuels. We are being lead to our demise by idiots.
- ok_dad 7mo ago
  > We are being lead to our demise by idiots. They aren't idiots, they are evil. They know what they are doing; enriching themselves and hoarding political power and resources. Claiming these folks are dumb rather than evil propagates the idea that we should give them some sort of leeway. In fact, we should have sent these clowns to prison 5 years or more ago.
  - qingcharles 7mo ago
    I don't think they even care about enriching themselves. I don't think they care about the money. I don't even think these little projects move the needle much. It's literally just evil for evil's sake.
    - kelnos 7mo ago
      Yes. Many of these people are rich enough that they could stop working today and their descendants could maintain their lifestyle for generations. It's about power, and leveraging that power over people they don't like, for petty reasons. Those who aren't rich enough... yes, just pure evil. Their parents didn't hug them enough or something, and now they think that "owning the libs" is a life strategy. It's pathetic. I'd feel bad for them if they weren't causing so much harm in the process.
- ryoshoe 7mo ago
  [dead]
- Braxton1980 7mo ago
  The only idiots are the people who voted for Trump

by Ajedi32 7mo ago

jchmbrln 7mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 7mo ago
We paid them that to make wind farms. They're now being allowed to keep the money, and not build wind farms. Title seems accurate? It's the clear intention of the administration's actions here.

sheikhnbake 7mo ago

Not sure how it relates to subsidies, but it is what you said. The government is cancelling wind shore projects leased to TotalEnergies under the Biden admin for ~$930 million. The Trump admin is paying them back with the understanding that TotalEnergies will reinvest the money into oil and gas operations in the US

cwal37 7mo ago

You could go to the source and see[1]. > TotalEnergies has committed to invest approximately $1 billion—the value of its renounced offshore wind leases—in oil and natural gas and LNG production in the United States. Following their new investment, the United States will reimburse the company dollar-for-dollar, up to the amount they paid in lease purchases for offshore wind. Under this innovative agreement driven by President Donald J. Trump’s Energy Dominance Agenda, the American people will no longer pay for ideological subsidies that benefited only the unreliable and costly offshore wind industry. > For its part, TotalEnergies will invest $928MM, on the following projects in 2026: The development of Train 1 to 4 of Rio Grande LNG plant in Texas; The development of upstream conventional oil in Gulf of America and of shale gas production. Following TotalEnergies’ $928 million in investments in affordable, reliable and secure U.S. energy projects, the United States will terminate the following leases and reimburse the company [1] https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-and-totalenergies-agree-end-offshore-wind-projects-lowering-costs-american https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-and-totalenergies...

Ajedi32 7mo ago
Thanks, that's helpful. Pretty annoying the original article didn't link to its source given that it was just repeating the contents of a press release. Anyone know what these "ideological subsidies" are that they're referring to? Were they part of the agreement that was just terminated? Or was that just a vaguely related talking point they inserted into the press release for political reasons?
- cwal37 7mo ago
  "ideological subsidies" for this administration means any policy supporting non-thermal and non-battery (to a lesser extent, although their lobby has pretty successfully extracted them from previous renewable associations they relied on) generating units. To get more specific, you could say everything rolled back from the IRA as part of the BBB.
  - Ajedi32 7mo ago
    If it's just BBB they're referring to then I would call that a political talking point since that doesn't seem directly related to this deal. Unless the subsidies being repealed explains why TotalEnergies seems happy to get out of the lease now even though they presumably thought it was a good deal for them back when they originally agreed to it. If that's true though then I don't know why neither the article nor the press release say anything about it other than in this vague allusion.
    - beepbooptheory 7mo ago
      Unclear to me what would satisfy this complaint.. You wish La Monde speculated more on some glaring omission of motive here? You're original point is that they seemed to speculate too much!
      - Ajedi32 7mo ago
        They could do some actual journalism, find out the answers to some of these obvious follow-up questions, and report on them. Or, failing that, link to the press report since it seems like as is they aren't really adding much beyond that. But my original complaint about editorializing was about the title the submitter wrote on HN, not the article title.

while_true_ 7mo ago

NY Times phrases it as a reimbursement to TotalEnergies for relinquishing wind leases that they paid for. The US made the reimbursement contingent on them investing in fossil fuel projects. "The deal is an extraordinary transfer of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company for the purposes of boosting the production of fossil fuels." Total waste of $1 Bil of taxpayer dollars. If the oil and gas industry want to shut down wind projects let them pay for it.

ericfr11 7mo ago
GOP capitalism at its worst: take public money and give it to private interests, without any thoughts of what makes sense.
- hedora 7mo ago
  "Trump asked oil and gas executives in 2024 to raise $1 billion for his campaign and told them he’d grant their policy wish list if he won. The investment, he said, would be a “deal” given the taxes and regulation they would avoid under his presidency. He also offered to help fast-track fossil fuel industry mergers and acquisitions if he won." https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/fossil-fuel-industry-donors-see-major-returns-trumps-policies https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/foss...
- dchinu 7mo ago
  Cough Cough Big Bank bailout..... this is corpocracy with two branding every few year interval.
  - dashundchen 7mo ago
    You should probably look up when the TARP bailiut program was passed and initiated, because it wasn't when Obama was president. The Great Financial Crisis brewed and exploded under Bush. Obama pushed for the 2010 Dodd Frank reforms to rein in big banks after that. Corporate bailouts, huge deficit spending, mega tax cuts for the mega rich, and bottomless pit defense spending have been Republican policy for the last 50 years.

standardUser 7mo ago

They are taking money committed to a wind project and redirecting it towards burning fossil fuels - because what other lesson can we take from a global energy shock other than to increase our exposure to the next one? The company itself (France's Total) had already committed to the wind deal, so now the Trump admin is letting them off the hook, and using Trump's irrational refusal to issue licenses for wind power as the excuse for why the deal wasn't working out as originally planned.

alephnerd 7mo ago
Total is also committed to expanding LNG - Total [0] and Oil India [1] are collaborating on a $20 Billion LNG extraction megaproject in Mozambique which was paused due to an Islamist insurgency during which Total-and-Oil India-funded paramilitary allegedly committed massacres against civilians [2] while putting down an Islamic State insurgency in Cabo Delgado. The US, France+India, and China have been competing over this project for decades. These are businesses - no one cares about morals, only interests. And it is in France's interest to unlock these kinds of LNG projects. [0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/mozambique-says-totalenergies-led-lng-project-relaunch-thursday-2026-01-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/mozambique-says-tota... [1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-india-sees-restart-mozambique-lng-project-by-years-end-2025-09-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-india-sees-resta... [2] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gw119ynlxo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gw119ynlxo
TheSpiceIsLife 7mo ago
[flagged]
- mindslight 7mo ago
  It seems like you should want the types of vehicles that can avoid using fossil fuels to do so, to keep your own prices down? What is with this attitude of reflexively interpreting the development of alternatives as if they are mandatory ?
  - 7mo ago

jmyeet 7mo ago

We don't know some important specifics about the deal but (IMHO) that's on purpose and is telling, meaning you only end up obscure deal details because you have something to hide. So I don't know what stage the project was at but by withdrawing from the deal or cancelling it, the government is going to have to pay a penalty. Is that penalty $10 million? Is it $500 million? We don't really know. So it could be that TotalEnergies is still getting paid $1 billion but now they have to spend $600 million on some fossil fuel project. But in doing so the government has essentially paid a $400 million break penalty. You see what I mean? I don't believe for a second that the government didn't lose money on this political cancellation. The fossil fuel project is just a way to hide that and save face (IMHO).

tw04 7mo ago

https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/03/trumps-latest-anti-wind-effort-pay-companies-to-abandon-offshore-leases/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/03/trumps-latest-anti-w... They only get the money if they reinvest in oil and gas. It’s not just trying to kill wind, it’s actively trying to expand burning fossil fuels. We are being lead to our demise by idiots.

ok_dad 7mo ago
> We are being lead to our demise by idiots. They aren't idiots, they are evil. They know what they are doing; enriching themselves and hoarding political power and resources. Claiming these folks are dumb rather than evil propagates the idea that we should give them some sort of leeway. In fact, we should have sent these clowns to prison 5 years or more ago.
- qingcharles 7mo ago
  I don't think they even care about enriching themselves. I don't think they care about the money. I don't even think these little projects move the needle much. It's literally just evil for evil's sake.
  - kelnos 7mo ago
    Yes. Many of these people are rich enough that they could stop working today and their descendants could maintain their lifestyle for generations. It's about power, and leveraging that power over people they don't like, for petty reasons. Those who aren't rich enough... yes, just pure evil. Their parents didn't hug them enough or something, and now they think that "owning the libs" is a life strategy. It's pathetic. I'd feel bad for them if they weren't causing so much harm in the process.
ryoshoe 7mo ago
[dead]
Braxton1980 7mo ago
The only idiots are the people who voted for Trump